The point wasn’t that we should go all-in on hydrogen. The point was that they’ve been actively suppressing alternatives to oil for the better part of a century

My wife writes it with her left hand, to avoid this very issue!

Hah, I debated saying something about that, but decided that was a separate conversation

Thanks! Wish I could remember where I saw an animation describing it this way - it was some educational software from the nineties, I’m pretty sure.

A bit late to the party, but I’ll try anyway!

So, first, speed is distance over time. Miles per second, kilometers per hour, whatever.

Consider a person rocketing by a planet in a little spaceship at a good fraction of the speed of light. To amuse themselves, they’re bouncing a ball between two paddles on opposite walls of their craft. The ball describes a path like:

O--------O

–O----O

-----O

Of course, to a person on a planet they’re blasting past, the path looks different - the ship moves a long way between each bounce, so they see:

O----------------------------------O

-------O------------------O

----------------O

The thing is, both of these are correct from each point of view - from each reference frame. For the shipboard person, the ball moves the width of the ship, and for the planetside person, it covers the distance the ship traveled in the bounce (plus some for the width).

Now, swap the ball for a photon, which always moves at the same speed. The distance the photon travels from the two points of view - the two reference frames - is different, so the time component of the photon’s measured speed must change as well because the photon’s speed remains the same! Each side sees the photon moving at the same speed, despite the difference in distance traversed each pov sees - which means each must also have a different measurement of the time involved!

So, time is compressed on the spaceship relative to the planet - from the ship, the planetside observer is moving very fast, while to the planetside observer, the space pilot is moving in slow motion. The speed of the photon is universal - it’s the distance it travels between bounces, and therefore how long it takes to bounce, that differs between their perspectives.

So I’m not bothered by the inconsistent scale… but why is there a dinosaur peeking through the bottom of the 1889 column?!

On the other hand, show me a universe you made, and I’ll be impressed!

No mention of an eighth day in that story - we’re still in the “god rested” day!

They even have the same fix - just post somewhere quietly that it’s “entertainment”

Given that it’s the same brain interpreting information from two different eyeballs, I’d suspect this is down to minute differences either between them (such as adjusting for darkness while testing as Kratzkopf suggested), or in their relative position.

It’s interesting, but I don’t think it really gets at the question of differing perceptions between people.

It’s faster, cleaner, and far more efficient for me to clean my kids’ dinner plates.

And if I always do it, they’ll never do it on their own.

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification!

Iirc, there’s speculation that neanderthals needed something like 3000 calories per day just to sustain themselves.

We may have just survived because we can go leaner.

From a very cursory Wikipedia check, hominini includes chimpanzees?

I might have missed something - you’re saying anthropologists consider all hominins human? Including chimpanzees?

Wolfie will know!

What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.

I’m not saying that there aren’t terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.

So it lets us work out certain laws inherent in our universe? Wow, I did miss that implication…

Hadn’t heard of her before! The theorem sounds interesting, but the Wikipedia article is a bit dense - I got that “any system with symmetry will have conserved values”, but I got lost on the implications. Would you mind expanding on her theorem?

Declaring people to have a certain value relative to each other strikes me as uncomfortably close to treating people as things.

Vanilla flavoring used to be made from castoreum, which is harvested from beaver anal glands